Sign DeSmog's petition to throw the Junk Science off Fox News

Sign DeSmog's petition to throw the Junk Science off Fox News

UPDATE 1: We're at 128 signatures and growing, not bad for the 1st day. I know a lot of DeSmog's friends are going to post stories, so the numbers should keep rising. Remember to email it to your friends!

Yesterday we reported that News Corp. CEO and Fox News owner, Rupert Murdoch announced that his company would join the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Murdoch stated: “Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction…”

The first thing Murdoch and News Corp. can do to show that they are truly committed to fighting global warming is ending its reporting of misinformation about the science behind global warming on the Fox News Channel.

And the best thing you can do to help make this happen is by signing DeSmogBlog's online petition (click link) and then send it to all of your friends and have them sign it as well. Ask them to forward it on to their friends.

Steve Milloy (aka. “The Junkman”) is a regular Fox News columnist and tireless campaigner in the war against climate science. A quick read of Milloy's website and you will find the usual laundry list of scientific claims that have long been dismissed by the scientific community – the experts in the field of climate science.

Milloy was at one point the director of an organization called the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which by many is considered the grand-daddy of modern industry front groups. TASCC cut its teeth on the war against tobacco smoke and later expanded into other areas like global warming. News Corp. CEO, Rupert Murdoch stated that: “Our audience's carbon footprint is 10,000 times bigger than ours … Imagine if we succeed in inspiring our audiences to reduce their own impacts on climate change by just 1 percent. That would be like turning the state of California off for almost two months.”

One of the first big steps Murdoch can make to show this commitment to climate change would be to ensure quality coverage based on the best available science.

Offer viewers the real scientific story.

That is not to say that other scientific opinions should be somehow censored, but instead there should be effort put into ensuring that these other opinions represent the current scientific thinking on the issue of global warming. The public deserves the best media coverage possible on this issue, so we can make informed decisions and separate the “spin” from the truth.

If Rupert Murdoch is true to his words and is committed to real action on global warming, then he will throw the “junk science” off Fox News.

This petition will be forwarded to News Corp. once we have 1,000 signatures - so sign up, email it to your friends and ask them to email it to their friends. 5 minutes of your time could really make a difference in ensuring quality news coverage on the most important issue we are facing today.

Previous Comments

It is amazing just how comfortable Desmoggers are with the idea of censorship. What are you afraid of? Usually those who want to censor opposing views are afraid that their own ideas can’t withstand critical scrutiny.

I suspect that is the case here. It is why the Goracle ducks debate with people who know something about the topic of climate change and why David Suzuki, Canada’s Grumpy Old Man, wants everyone skeptical of the AGW hypothesis to “just shut the f***-up.”

If you Desmoggers had any faith in your cause, you would welcome the opportunity to demolish skeptics and “deniearalists”. Instead, you do everything you can to silence them, thereby avoidng debate. (And please spare me the bullshit that there is nothing to debate, that the science is settled and there is a consensus. That rhetoric long ago passed its “best before” date.)

The thought of folks like you exerting influence on impressionable minds is downright scary.

John Dowell said: “The thought of folks like you exerting influence on impressionable minds is downright scary”.

What is scary that somewhere along the line some right wing climate denier got into your impressionable mind and filled it full of nonsense and lies. If you had any background in science you would have realized that they were talking nonsense. However, you seem to have putty for a brain and you joined the club for putty brains. That is why it is not right to expose impressionable minds to your scientific nonsense. Too many people are lacking in basic science knowledge.

John, as you can see, Ian Forrester has, predictably as clockwork, demonstrated your point perfectly. Any challenge to debate tends to be met with infantile name-calling, and teary-eyed vituperation. That’s all they seem capable of, by and large. I predict they will eventually go down in Global Warming causing flames with their antics, and I sense they are already well on the way.

Well my backfround is science all the way Chemistry and Physics as undergrad then Environmental Chemistry, Physics and Geology about 3 M.A. degrees worth from top quality schools.
If I have a specialty it is evaluating scientific method.
Let me tell you a secret…AGW is a complex theory, it needs to explain what has been observed and be useful for predicting future climate. If it fails in either case it needs to be revised or dismissed. During the last 20 years it has failed miserably on both criteria over and over. It may well be happening to some extent but so far the “skeptics” have the science mostly on their side.
As near as I can tell the research suggests that the world is warming slightly but not to unusual levels. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising and this should produce warming. However the supposed positive feedback effects that are supposed to make this a big change have not been experimentally validated and historic evidence strongly suggests they may actually be negative net effects.
What we can expect from all this is more efficient plant growth. Beyond this even the top models disagree wildly.
If you really think the precautionary principle is the most important thing at play here, by all means reduce your carbon signature. But don’t ask everyone else to do as much or more than you do.
Let me give you the biggest change we as a society could quickly make. We could cut carbon emission 40% and reduce a whole array of damging environmental problems just by switching all Coal, oil and gas fired power generation to nuclear fission. I would suggest to you that peopole who are “concerned” about AGW while at the same time opposing nuclear power are not really concerned with global warming.

“Well my backfround is science all the way Chemistry and Physics as undergrad then Environmental Chemistry, Physics and Geology about 3 M.A. degrees worth from top quality schools. If I have a specialty it is evaluating scientific method… ”

“About” 3 MA degrees? You mean you are not sure how many MA degrees you really have, if any at all? And if you really had a Masters degree in Science, wouldn’t you say you had an MSc degree or an MS, depending where you got the degree? MA means Master of Arts, not of Science.

And what is a specialty in evaluating scientific method? Doesn’t sound like science to me.

Obviously, that’s not a scientific specialty. In fact, this guy can try to claim all these degrees, but the truth is he’s a high school teacher in Chippwa Falls, Wisconsin. He’s no more of an expert on climate change than Steven Milloy.

“That is not to say that other scientific opinions should be somehow censored, but instead there should be effort put into ensuring that these other opinions represent the current scientific thinking on the issue of global warming. The public deserves the best media coverage possible on this issue, so we can make informed decisions and separate the “spin” from the truth.”

If Milloy wants to present science, as it is in reality, based on current peer-reviewed literature, that would be fine.

“If Milloy wants to present science, as it is in reality, based on current peer-reviewed literature, that would be fine.”

I see. Would that be okay with you? We just want to make sure of that first.

But I have a better idea. Since neither Al Gore, nor David Suzuki play by those rules (or this entire web site, for that matter), how about Milloy says whatever he likes, and you just suck it up.

How ever you try to soft-peddle it, by circumscibing what someone may or may not say, or on what terms they may say it, you are still demanding nothing less than censorship.

By doing this, you betray an utter lack of confidence in your own claims. This, in turn, would seem to indicate the fragility and unresilience of your beliefs, based on those claims. The degree to which you are intolerant of criticism is directly proportional to your lack of credibility.

The fact is, people like you don’t get to make the rules, nor dictate them to anyone else. And God help us if people like you are ever allowed into that position.

Green Taliban said: “Since neither Al Gore, nor David Suzuki play by those rules (or this entire web site, for that matter)”. What a joke. If you had read anything of relevance other than what you have found on right wing sites you could not make that statement. It is utter nonsense and just shows how biased and out of touch with reality you are.

As for your statment “The fact is, people like you don’t get to make the rules, nor dictate them to anyone else. And God help us if people like you are ever allowed into that position”. The rules for how science is conducted and how scientists behave have been around for at least 250 years. It is called the scientific method. It does not include the use of lies, distortion nor misrepresentation of facts. Thus Milloy is neither a scientist nor does he conduct science.

I read Milloy faithfully, not because he writes interesting papers. He doesn’t; therefore, how does he “distort science”? For the most part he merely provide links to other relevant sites … including this one even though the relevancy is questionable here. Censorship should not be agenda driven: either shut ‘em all up or shut none of them down. I’m old enough – and wise enough – to remember dozens of other “chicken-little” claims and I’ll wait for some real evidence here before I wet my pants. So far it is little more than bloviating b/s by the Chief Bloviator Gore.

Mr. Gore does not pay attention. If he did he would have stated in his movie that the following are true:
1. There is an average 800 year lag time between CO2 and temperature. Temperature goes up then CO2 goes up not the other way around as he indicated.
2. CO2 is plant food. As we produce CO2 plants grow faster and bigger.
3. Historic records show there were times when CO2 was tens of times higher than today and we were in an ice age.
4. The Holocene Optimum was 5-6 degrees warmer than today and we survived and so did the polar bear.
The CO2 cause AGW does not pass the logic test. For something to be true it must be necessay and sufficient. CO2 is not necessary to cause the warming nor is it sufficient to cause the warming we see so it is not the logical reason we see some warming as we come out of the Little Ice Age.
Let’s try the sun as the answer.
Finally, you don’t need to be a scientist to verify the logic or the math of arguments for or against. If the math does not add up then even an engineer call call a foul.

I suppose your definition of a “real scientist” is a scientist who agrees with you or the Goreacle. Gores only interest in AGW is riding this pony back into the political limelight to attempt to revive his failed political career. He himself said that it’s OK to lie and stretch the truth in oreder to get peoples attention. Yeahh…right….

Green Taliban said: “Then maybe that explains why he doesn’t claim to be a scientist nor to conduct science”.

I know that he is not a scientist and many scientists realize this too. However, since it is stated on his Bio on the CEI web-site that he “holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health”, then the average non-scientist may be led to believe that he is a scientist and since his “reports” are written up in the way of a science paper then he is misreperesenting his qualifications and passing himself off as a real scientist.

This, of course , is not unknown in those who wish to try and control members of the putty brain club.

So Green Taliban, I annoint you with the designation MPBC. I hope you will use it with the dignity it deserves in your correspondence with the Governing Body of AGW deniers.

Agreed on most parts. I think the main point of these folks is they come across being so called experts on the news programs. What people like Tim Ball do on their own time is fine, he wants to make up a bunch of nonsence then history will end up being the judge. However, when he is put up on TV as proclaimed or self proclaimed “Climate Expert”, someone who hasnt even published in over 12 years, and only has 2 papers related to climate change itself,leaves the wrong impression on the viewing public who in essence doesnt know any better like Ian points out.

Green Taliban and other right wing GW deniers: Assuming for a moment that the jury is still out on whether Global Warming is occuring, don’t you at least see value in having less polluted skies? And isn’t a USA that cultivates energy production and jobs from home grown sources like solar, wind and biofuel better off than a USA that obtains energy from an international market whose price is largely set by middle eastern countries? The US military now thinks so. If an appeal to science doesn’t work for you, how about an appeal to your sense of patriotism which you right wingers claim to have in so much abundance?

OK Green Taliban, would the censorship you’re so concerned with be the same as the censorship that scientists at the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration complained of from Bush political appointees? Or would it more closely resemble the censorship scientist complained of at the Environmental Protection Agency, or the Bureau of Land Management, or the Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Food and Drug Administration?

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is the basis of the worlds food chain and it is an essential life giving gas I can refer for you at least 200 recent papers in the peer reviewed literature that will tell you that increased carbon dioxide is favorable for life on this planet even at levels higher than it is possible for us to artificially produce.
Please what the real research is saying, even from the AGW supporters, is farther from your position than it is from that of the most strident deniers.

“…On 21 August 1986, the lake emitted a large cloud of CO2 in a limnic eruption, which suffocated up to 1,800 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby villages…”

Then there is coal damp which has killed many miners.

“…Coal miners in the days before battery powered lamps used an acetylene flame burning in a reflector lamp on their helmets. They also carried another flame that they would carefully adjust to a mark on a ruler in the lamp. They would check its height occasionally while they worked. If the air was getting “bad”, the flame would be under the mark. If the flame would suddenly go out, they knew they had hit a pocket of “coal damp” – carbon dioxide…”

Coal damp can explode as it did at Hillcrest, in addition to asphyxiating people.

Why not research how many lives will be lost trying to lower the planets temp by the negligible amount that the Kyoto protocols and all the rest will achieve? Do a little research on the subject, if you care about human life. I know it doesn’t fit your little dream, but how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to lower the planets temp? And why does one have to be right wing to despise bad science? Denier? Don’t attempt to equate my questioning a scientific theory with denying the Holocaust. You insult yourself and the millions who died at the hands of the Nazis. There is no moral equivalence there. Millions of lives have been lost to Malaria because of the bad science used to stop the use of DDT. The truth is finally coming out about DDT despite people like you who want to “stop debate”.
No one has anything against cleaner air and water. All my vehicles over the past 20 years have gotten 50 or more miles to the gallon. What moves you around? It’s when elitist millionaires tell me and the rest of the people on the planet, to make sacrifices they will never make, nor be affected by that I get pissed.

“What people like Tim Ball do on their own time is fine, he wants to make up a bunch of nonsence then history will end up being the judge. However, when he is put up on TV as proclaimed or self proclaimed “Climate Expert”, someone who hasnt even published in over 12 years, and only has 2 papers related to climate change itself,leaves the wrong impression on the viewing public who in essence doesnt know any better like Ian points out.”

Remind me again how many papers the learned experts Al Gore and David Suzuki have published?

Are you aware that you were challenging someone’s statement about Tim “First Canadian Climatologist” Ball, and now you are talking about Milloy?
The “complaint” would be that if someone is going to take it upon themselves to challenge the overwhelming majority of scientists, they had better have some kind of qualifications.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Keep In Touch

The phrase “clean coal” has about as much merit as saying “sanitary sewage,” but that hasn’t stopped the industry and pro-coal talking heads from repeating that phrase ad nauseum to the American public.

The Orwellian industry buzzphrase was so successful that the Obama administration, as part of the 2009 stimulus package, pledged more than $1 billion to create the largest carbon-capturing system known as FutureGen 2.0. The...